User talk:Gauravd05

Speedy deletion of NEC ExpressCluster
A tag has been placed on NEC ExpressCluster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NEC ExpressCluster
Please provide some sources indicating the marketshare worldwide or in the US for this product.

I've personally architected and implemented several dozen large enterprise clusters, and done fairly significant technical and market research in the field. I have never seen the product used in the US. That does not mean that it's not present here, but I am extremely skeptical of your claim that it's in the top 10 products worldwide... please provide reliable sources we can verify which establish that.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of NEC ExpressCluster
A tag has been placed on NEC ExpressCluster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mayalld (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Mayalld (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Well, I suppose it was iffy the second time whether it qualified under promational material or not, but in both cases, the subject of the article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines found here. Basically, these state that if the subject of an article has not had at least a moderate level of coverage in reliable third-party sources, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. The reason for this is because with coverage from reliable sources, we can't verify that what is being said is true. Regards. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 03:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
As is conventional, I have replied on MY talk page. I do not participate in fragmented discussions. Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: again
My apologies for the delay in replying; I have been busy in my "real" life... You do make a very good case there and I would definitely agree those are reliable sources. If you want to make an article about it, feel free to click NEC ExpressCluster and create the article. btw, you don't have to ask my permission to do something, though I will be happy to advise you if you need help. Even though I have the position of "administrator", that "position" isn;t really one of authority in the sense that other websites and companies use the term. (see WP:ADMIN for more info if you would like it) Also, when you write the article, it is important to write from a neutral point of view (you have this one pretty much down, but I just wanted to remind you :) ) and it is helpful to include inline citations to cite sections of the article to specific statements. (If you don't already know about them, the cite web, cite book and cite news templates are good ways to format your citations in a consistent and professional manner) If you would like the text of the article you already wrote, just let me know and I will give it to you. (admins can retrieve the text of deleted pages if requested). If you need any more help, feel free to ask.  Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again. The text of the article before it was deleted is now available at User:Thingg/sandbox so you can get at it. To answer your questions: 1)You can put them at the end of the article without referencing them in the article's body, but in my opinion, it is worth the extra effort to include inline citations because it makes it easier for readers to verify what is being said and it also makes the article look more "professional", meaning that newpage patrollers are less likely to place a speedy tag on the article. What you could do as a kind of happy medium is use inline citations to a few of the third-party sources that are clearly reliable (the infotech article for example) and either list the other general references below the inline citation reflist or put them in a brief "Further reading" section below the "References" section. (In this case, the ending sections' order (top-to-bottom) would be something like "References>Further reading>External links") Again, there's really no hard-set rules on how you have to do this, but following certain conventions such as keeping the "External links" and/or "Further reading" section(s) brief and including inline citations make the article much less likely to be targeted by newpage patrollers even if its prose isn't totally NPOV (which I can tell you is difficult to follow when writing about a specific product).


 * Also, I just wanted to let you know that even if you do a great job with the article, I can't guarantee that other people will agree this product is notable as some people have more stringent personal standards than I do on what qualifies as notable or not. My personal opinion is if there is enough coverage by reliable third-party sources that we can verify that what is being said is accurate, the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. After all, this isn't a conventional encyclopedia in the sense of space limitations (we have none for all practical purposes). Again though, not everyone shares the same view on this.


 * To answer your second question; an inline citation at the end of every paragraph and maybe one at the end of sentences that are potentially challengable is plenty for most articles. However, you may have a difficult time convincing some other people the subject is notable, so if you could find some (maybe even offline) sources that, for example, give its market share for recovery servers (if it has a high market share and you can prove it with a citation to a reliable third-party source (or multiple sources), I'm pretty sure your notability troubles will be over) or an article such as https://redhatpartnerweb.com/apps/isv_catalog/AppProfile.html?application_id=5547 or especially http://www.itjungle.com/two/two080807-story03.html that gives a more neutral description of the product than the company's press releases, it will be very helpful. (another useful notability case I just found is this award that the technology was awarded in 2008.) Basically, in this case, you have to make the case for the product's notability and the more citations to reliable third-party sources you have, the easier it will be for you to make that case. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)